| 1 |
On Sun, 2 Jun 2002 17:19:44 +0300 |
| 2 |
Meir Kriheli <mksoft@×××××××××××××.il> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sunday 02 June 2002 17:16, David Chamberlain wrote: |
| 5 |
> > I have no problem with the idea of an installer. The more tools the |
| 6 |
> > better. On the other hand, a possible problem with Anaconda: I haven't |
| 7 |
> > used it, but I assume it's x86 only? If so, we can't use it on ppc, |
| 8 |
> > sparc etc. One of gentoo's greatest virtues is portability (look for |
| 9 |
> > more ports appearing over the next few months), and I would encourage |
| 10 |
> > anyone writing tools to bear this in mind. For a quick fix, anaconda |
| 11 |
> > may be fine (we'll just live without the installer on ppc), but is |
| 12 |
> > there any reason why, in the long term, the --buildpkg/--usepkg |
| 13 |
> > features of portage couldn't be leveraged in place of the rpms? A |
| 14 |
> > virtue of this is that portage itself could be tweaked to enhance the |
| 15 |
> > installer if necessary, since it's our tool, not RedHat's. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > Regards, |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > David |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I intend to write one from scratch (using qt/e or fb/gtk+ as I need |
| 23 |
> i18n). I think anaconda has too many redhat specific issues, and writing |
| 24 |
> one from scratch would make a fun and interesting project. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Another possibility is the installer that was from the short-lived |
| 27 |
Progeny distro - it was written in pygtk and was quite nice. |
| 28 |
IIRC they made it available when they bailed on the distro scene. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Jon Nelson <jnelson@×××××××.net> |
| 35 |
C and Python Code Gardener |
Archives